 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't that transactional is a word I would use.
A relationship is about 2 people bring fulfilled. That sometimes includes some give and take and some compromising. That's a good thing and you should be happy to make compromises to ensure both people in the relationship are happy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There’s plenty of give and take, and a whole bucket of compromise to find middle grounds. I don’t see it as a transaction that goes to a sort of memory based ledger. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think they are transactional but there needs to be matched effort.
That's the big one for me.
Too many times in the past I've done all the running, made all the compromises and effort and rarely it's ever been matched and sometimes taken for granted.
I love to care, I'm kind, I'm a giver, planner etc but there d a point you realise that others don't try.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"Do you consider them to be transactional? Give and take? A tally sheet on both sides? I'm talking romantic, sexual, friendship - all kinds of relationships.
Friday musings.
Mrs TMN x"
I wouldn’t say transactional, but you can think of them like bank accounts or investments if you don’t put enough in regularly and go overdrawn, might not be able to take anything out. If you make sacrifices to invest into them regularly, they will grow very well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Relationships are give and take throughout I doubt very much people are going to be completely compatible it's a mutual understanding but honest and faithful..."
Yeo you put it better than us . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Transactional? Probably not. Reciprocal and mutually fulfilling - yes. And the division doesn't necessarily have to be 50/50 because there are times when we lean on our 'partner' (for whatever reason) more than we give, and vice-versa.
I wouldn't expect the 'relationship' to be too prescriptive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No tally sheet, no score. Its not like that.
However it's not unconditional. A relationship needs boundaries even if they're incredibly tolerant. There is always a level of bad behaviour and lack of respect where you need to draw the line and say your out regardless how much you love someone (I've been there myself).
But providing your love for each other is mutual and you both act with love and respect for each other it's not a game of Top Trumps. We are all different and have different things to offer and different capabilities to offer. The main is your both putting the effort in to your relationship and each other. Don't measure a relationship on a tally chart just ask does this work in the good times and (more importantly) the bad.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Again I think the term transactional is the wrong word, it isn't a business, but in reality the reason we band together instead of roaming alone is to benefit. You have friends to stop boredom, you have family to have a clan and you have a partner to care for or receive care from.
Everything we do is for benefit and so yes to an extent, transactional. But anyone who tallies up, keeps note of or tries to say they do more is attempting to be superior to that group, and creating a challenge where it is not needed.
Relationships must benefit both sides otherwise it is not a relationship, but simply work with no redemption |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"Do you consider them to be transactional? Give and take? A tally sheet on both sides? I'm talking romantic, sexual, friendship - all kinds of relationships.
Friday musings.
Mrs TMN x"
I think there's different (trying to find the right word) standards, thresholds or expectations for relationships with people. I couldn't have the same criteria for a friendship as for a relationship.
Transactional relationships aren't good though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wish there was a magic way of making relationships work. I know a couple girl got pregnant at 16 him 17 ish family against them 50 odd years later still together. Others you said made for each other divorced
Yes give and take but never tally sheet or do anything to get even . You need honesty then most things fall in place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"Again I think the term transactional is the wrong word, it isn't a business, but in reality the reason we band together instead of roaming alone is to benefit. You have friends to stop boredom, you have family to have a clan and you have a partner to care for or receive care from.
Everything we do is for benefit and so yes to an extent, transactional. But anyone who tallies up, keeps note of or tries to say they do more is attempting to be superior to that group, and creating a challenge where it is not needed.
Relationships must benefit both sides otherwise it is not a relationship, but simply work with no redemption"
I disagree , I have friends because I like giving and and being held to account by people I trust & I don’t need a clan & I have children to make the world a better place for others now and when I’m gone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
The amount of give and take in a relationship can be unequal, without it nevessarily being negative.
Sometimes is down to simple things like logistics, affordability, time and all manner of things that make it impossible for it to be completely equal at all times.
So long as both parties are happy, nobody is taking advantage of anyone else and its all for mutual benefit then no, I don't think there's any need to balance the books and keep any kind of tally.
Whether it's just friendship, FWB's or a full blown LTR or marriage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eliWoman
over a year ago
. |
"I don't think they are transactional but there needs to be matched effort.
That's the big one for me.
Too many times in the past I've done all the running, made all the compromises and effort and rarely it's ever been matched and sometimes taken for granted.
I love to care, I'm kind, I'm a giver, planner etc but there d a point you realise that others don't try.
"
Yep, that's exactly it for me as well.
I don't see them as being transactional but I think that relationships of any kind require effort, time and genuine care to varying degrees.
I've had to take time away from things previously when I've realised that it's pretty much one sided - sometimes prompted by friends but other times when I'm reminded how good relationships (in any sense of the word) can be and how sorely lacking in reciprocity others are.
I don't think it always needs to be balanced - there are times when one person may be experiencing a difficult time, may need more "love" or attention. You don't have to have constant communication, have a tit for tat scenario.
You do need to both make an effort and time for it though, to some extent. If one party isn't? It's perhaps
I think the overall thing for me is "do I feel like the other person has tried?". If I start questioning it or realise I'm the one making all the effort with no real input from the other side, I'm too old for that now and step away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again I think the term transactional is the wrong word, it isn't a business, but in reality the reason we band together instead of roaming alone is to benefit. You have friends to stop boredom, you have family to have a clan and you have a partner to care for or receive care from.
Everything we do is for benefit and so yes to an extent, transactional. But anyone who tallies up, keeps note of or tries to say they do more is attempting to be superior to that group, and creating a challenge where it is not needed.
Relationships must benefit both sides otherwise it is not a relationship, but simply work with no redemption
I disagree , I have friends because I like giving and and being held to account by people I trust & I don’t need a clan & I have children to make the world a better place for others now and when I’m gone. "
Does this not class as transactional though, and benefiting you?
You are saying you have friends because you like giving, so that transaction is you giving them something so that you feel good for giving it to them?
That saying of there is no such thing as a selfless good deed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wish there was a magic way of making relationships work. I know a couple girl got pregnant at 16 him 17 ish family against them 50 odd years later still together. Others you said made for each other divorced
Yes give and take but never tally sheet or do anything to get even . You need honesty then most things fall in place"
We got together at 13 and 14.
Had a child at 15 and 16.
40 year later we have 3 grandchildren and 9 grandchildren.
We just work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's 3 basic forms of human relation according to my understanding.
Transactional: that's how our society functions primarily due to its law and economic system. That's how I do business. As I have little other choice.
Communal: that's for lovers, friends and family for me. Has been tried on a social scale. Humans don't yet appear to have the capacity to sustain this. Didn't go too well did it that little experiment.
Dominance: hierarchical distribution of power. Nope not happening, not interested on any level.
I'm an anarchist sin adjectivos as my Spanish squatter comrades once called me. A mutualist. Quite an interesting bunch of stragglers they were too. I like Marx and Von Mises. I like Goldman and Rand.
Self-sacrifice isn't just Immoral it's impossible. To love indiscriminately is to love nothing at all. We love someone for their virtues. I think that's Rand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
